Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 6, 2010 8:00pm-8:30pm PST

9:00 pm
was their drawings submitted for the following to reflect the design review? >> the plan>> the plans are notu now. there was no parking on the plans that the project sponsor had submitted. they do not have the co-required parking. -- code-required parking. >> those became the basis. >> that is correct. >> we do not have that. >> we also did the have the discretionary comments and analysis. >> i apologize that those materials and should have been
9:01 pm
submitted. >> your variance is based upon that review and what ever was decided. >> we can have the discretionary view documented and brought to this board. >> this represented what? >> what the project sponsor had submitted represent what they would like to have fifth and they pursued a parking variance. -- if they pursued a parking variance. >> this is what they would like that this point in time? >> i believe so. >> these documents say they are a side permit. >> beside permit was from april, 2008. that is what the planning
9:02 pm
commission had acted on nastier. -- last year. >> we did not submit to permits for a building a vacation this time. -- building application this time. >> i thought you had a question. if the parking variance is still alive, the fact that they might ask for a parking variance come up with that be taken into consideration? >> it is my understanding from the city attorney's office that that is the kind of thing that we cannot take into account. that is something that is a private matter. it is my understanding than the project's sponsors said that these men may contain a clause
9:03 pm
that extinguishes the easement. >> that might become a requirement of them. i assume the public would not grant an easement. unless they had some knowledge about where the cars would be parked. >> they would not need to provide any parking. what ever parking they would be providing a is a parking on the easement. >> we get cases where a parking variance has been asked for. the reasons why it is granted or not granted has to do with the availability of parking on the street.
9:04 pm
there are no plans for parking. you let them work it out as to what is allowed and what is not allowed on the easement. the only question i have is under finding 5. saying that they will not affect existing public parks or space. the plan have us understand that the shadowing is going to be no greater than the current shadowing? >> this is not a public open space. this is private open space. >> the where public modifies the parks. >> the is generally how we apply it. we want to have as little impact as possible on the private open
9:05 pm
space. >> that would have to do with the private reconciliation of the open space. even consider that a factor that it might cast a shadow. >> this project is different. it is said about further from the rear guard -- rear yard. >> that has to deal with some shadows. >> the shadows have open space. >> i've believe so. -- i beliveve so. >> i thought the decision issued in 1993, one of the reasons for the nile has to deal with the
9:06 pm
fact the -- denial that it would cast a shadow on the open space. we are about to reconciling that statement. it is the public open space. let's i did not say that entirely. we would want to have a project that has a minimal impact on the open space. the status of the significant impact on the private open space. this is the decision that was made last year. >> excuse my confusion. >> mr. sanchez, i do have a question. i am not clear how we could take this project when there is a
9:07 pm
complete parking variance application that your department is looking at here. we need to think about them altogether. >> 5 believe what would be proper is for the sport to have before them the plans that would be exhibit a to this letter and what provide the required parking. if they do want to pursue an alternative in the future, then that is what we have informed the project sponsor of. this is a new scheme that has been proposed by the project sponsor. by the time we have the hearing in june, they were going to provide the parking. i would ask you to explain why they may be seeking in the future modification of the
9:08 pm
project. this would have parking at the front. we have not heard any variance on a parking variance. fifth any such hearings were to occur, -- if any such hearing were to occur, they would have to show why they could not granted in the front. >> and wonder the if data means we should just go home. but the and would never disagree with the commissioner. -- >> i would never disagree with the commissioner. >> i am with the department of building inspection. a little bit of the information for you to consider.
9:09 pm
sometimes, three or four years ago, the department of building inspection was contacted by the owners of the property to change this to carolina. we got a request to change the address legally. the preliminary request was denied by the manager. the owner disagreed with that. i was asked to get involved. i spend quite a lot of time out that this site. i've reviewed all of the survey
9:10 pm
documents. i concluded that an raphaella letter and that there is the way that this could be a carolina street address. i understand that the owner wished to appeal to the director of the department of building inspection. my understanding is that the address never got changed. they are going to provide the whole orientation -- orientation of the address. >> did you say the -- what year that was? >> it might have been in 2007. >> it did not show up in the briefings. >> i thought it was interesting. >> what is the implication of that? >> i went through this to some degree with the owner of the
9:11 pm
property. that all had to do with what kind of actions would be allowed and recognized from the upper portion of the property. we felt that we were bound by what the court's determination was. it did not allow those kinds of abuses. we discussed that access was from here. even if the road was terminated, it could be extended. that could be pedestrian access and further develop access. that is one of the reasons we started changing the address. clearly was that have access.
9:12 pm
>> i spend a lot of time at that site. i grew up there. >> thank you. >> we are going to move into public, and now. you'll have time for rebuttal. would anybody that is interested in speaking in public comment raise your hands? please line up on the far side of the room fifth you are able to stand. -- if you are able to stand. >> each person will be given one minute to speak. if you have not completed a speaker car, please fill one out and give it to him after you to the finish speaking. >> hello, i am a resident.
9:13 pm
a i am part owner of the home that is currently in question here. i gladly them with the project's sponsor. >> are you pointing at a picture? >> the project site is at the top of the hill. they want to set it back in the rear yard. there is no harm in building a smaller footprint home. i just want to build a larger square footage home. >> could we see that picture? and i do not know what happened. you were making reference to it. we did not see it. >> there are no windows. we actually mentioned that we did have windows.
9:14 pm
we are much further down than the site they are proposing to build on. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i am that starr king and i have been a volunteer for over 20 years. why go up there every day. i also lived there. i have been a resident of the hill for many years. and your board of appeals commissioners, we are supporting the protest files against the variance for 1321. the elementary school is adjacent handled directly across carolina st.
9:15 pm
the open space is a valued resource for our school community. that provides an opportunity for students to explore nature and they value the environment. there are variances granted that this more than 12 feet closer to the open space. >> if helps you, we have this letter. >> you can finish reading the letter. >> here is the problem. if we allow one person to go for one minute, we have to allow everybody. we are in violation of sunshine. we have to figure out how much time we have given for a letter that we have in front of us. >> i could ask somebody else to finish reading the letter. >> something else the is really important is that last year,
9:16 pm
carolina street became a of 1- way street because of all of the traffic. we are an emergent school. people come from all over -- an immersion school. people come from all over. >> if you would step forward. >> my name is christopher. i live on 23rd street. buy them a previous board member of the open space. i think that this is a win-win situation for the city of san francisco. it is a public open space that is maintained for the benefit of neighbors as well as the city of san francisco at no cost to the city. it has then in existence for
9:17 pm
over 25 years. the previous owner had torn off the front staircase to his house. he tore off the front. there has then they push to try to access the back and make carolina st. be addressed. the proposed change is a game- changer. >> thank you. >> i have a question about whether or not i could speak to the board. >> i have not been involved in the variance according to the board. i have a conflict of interest. i am the owner of a 1325. >> she is not commenting as a
9:18 pm
representative of the board? you have the up and taken out of this? >> i have told the board that i would not be involved in the workings of this. >> why do we not hear this for one minute? >> i am meko owner of the 1323 de haro. we are glad that they took into account the request to slide the the building up the hill. all of the uncertainties regarding parking. the size of the proposed project is too big. footprint-wise, it would be twice as does my home. fifth they were to scale down -- if they were to scale down, they
9:19 pm
would be interfering with the neighbors to the bottom of us and over us. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i am a direct neighbor across the street. i have lived there for over 30 years. i am really concerned about this project and the density of it. the space that it is taking up is replacing a small cottage in the three units. that is a much bigger project than what has already been there. we talked about not having as much impact as the cottage would have fifth been put one more story on it. pushing it back towards the
9:20 pm
school makes its the end of more. this does not fit in as much. it makes more sense to me that the project be where they had originally planned it to be and not take up more space. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i live in the home next to the park. one of the things that has occurred through the 20 years i have lived there, there have been two separate incidents where the car had -- car has rode through the park. i think the parking issue is related to the variance that you gave for the backyard. if the parking garage was going to beyond de haro, then it
9:21 pm
was not have been granted. we were going to allow more room for the front to have a garage. these are two related issues that must be taken into account. for a three-unit building, why would you want to cut a backyard in half anyway? >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am a neighbor about five units downfalls on de haro street. and i do not know how you could even decide this. i am and -- as confused as you are. where are the plans? is there a garage? it seems like it changes every
9:22 pm
hearing. my wife would be here, too, but she is home with our son. it is simply not true that it is not going to impact the open space. because of the grade and the height of the building, it is showing to be giant. we will not call it the open space. we will call in the -- call it the boxed in space. >> i am here to support the boosters. it seems the this system not entirely clear. it seems the the variance that
9:23 pm
was granted has been given because of hardship. the hardship is because the house is so vague. that would be better if the house matched the footprint of the house next door. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i am a 31-year resident and a member of the garden association. i am also a retired teacher. i appreciate having open space around. this building is way too big and shadows too much open space. >> i am licensed architect from california. i am in support of the de haro project.
9:24 pm
a variances should be granted. i know the amount of work that went into this project. it is a zone for this level of density. it is in full compliance with the zoning code. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i visit the people the in 1321 de haro. there are 50% of the four properties that have killed since in their rear yards. does that not set the precedent
9:25 pm
of how the current variance was decided? >> my name is gary. by live at 1265 de haro. most of us who live next to the open space have backyards that border the open space. it gives the impression that the open space is larger than it is. those of us have trees, ferns, that border the open space. we are not saying the bid will take away square footage. we are saying the building a landmark will permanently change the landscape. this building will overpower the next-door neighbor homes. fifth but we give these guys of the variance -- if we give these
9:26 pm
guys the variance that the one, it will change the neighborhood. >> next speaker. >> the evening. i live about six blocks away from the open space. this is a part of the neighborhood of that needs to be preserved. there are all kinds of forces that are trying to make this go away. we should not allow that to happen. this is one of the last open spaces. whether it is public or private is irrelevant. the further away that this 6000- square-foot house is replacing the 980-square-foot house is irrelevant. >> any of her public comments? seeing none, we can move into
9:27 pm
rebuttal. mr. cole, you have three minutes. >> i agree with commissioner goh and with many of commissioner fung's comments. what is this project? the changes to much. we in the neighborhood should not be subjected to this shifting stance of what? the planning commission was very clear, no cars on the open space. that means no construction through the open space. let's get it decided what the developers want to do and have a fair discussion about that. that has a lot happened yet. the planning department the stock concede what is before you is the current plan of what the developers want. this is enormously expensive of
9:28 pm
time and your time to be here at 9:30. the comments that i've heard from mr. brown and mr. sanchez about the 1989 project being a very different projects, as if somehow this justifies this huge project that they want to play in. the statement that what is going to be there now is what once to be there by the developers is going to be an improvement for the open space over what is there now, it is "alice in wonderland." it is saying something without facts to back it up. it is going to be huge, much bigger than what is there now. that cannot be ignored. i would ask this commission to do was one of two things. take the appeal and deny the
9:29 pm
variance, or just send us back to planning so that it could be heard where this should be heard. it is not fair to this board and the people to make new plans as we are discussing a variance. send it about, let it be decided. if that comes back to you, maybe it will come back with a better decision and more planning from the department. we will have a letter about the de haro street versus carolina street. this is something of that changes as the developers want something more from this. >> thank you.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on